Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumana Secondary School


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Per this RfC, many arguments on both sides must be discounted. Quoting from the RfC, "Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG". This impacts both keep and delete rationales in this discussion. On the keep side, several editors make arguments that boil down to an implicit appeal to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as an accurate description of current consensus. That is directly contradicted by the RfC, which states the opposite. In particular, see the last sentence quoted above, which outright prescribes a delete outcome when such schools do not meet GNG. On the delete side, there is no evidence of a "deep search" that included local media and offline sources. Given all this, there's no consensus one way or the other. No prejudice against speedy renomination if a deep search is conducted beforehand. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Sumana Secondary School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources are contextless listings. The article was approved by despite the obvious issues with the sources, which have not been appreciably changed since the article was approved. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 05:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete– or send back to draft space. As seen on the talk page I was trying to work with the submitter on bringing the article up to at least minimum requirements, but not getting much traction.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  06:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * i cant find cites to article, i need help emps (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as given sources here, here and here would be enough for WP:V, which is all that's needed for verification. SwisterTwister   talk  04:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the first two are just listings and the third is a name-drop. Secondary/high schools are no longer considered inherently notable, per this. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 04:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note that the RfC did not overrule consensus. The consensus of notability still stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * An RfC that came to the consensus that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is deprecated does not mean consensus? In what world do you live where that isn't outright double-talk? — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 19:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The RfC concluded that citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be avoided in AfD discussions. There was no consensus it was deprecated. Nor has it been cited by anyone here. But it still stands as a summary of consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See above. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 19:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. The cited RfC didn't do anything of the sort. Like all discussions on the subject, it more or less ended n stalemate. Whether we quote OUTCOMES or not, it does not change the precedent of a process that has been firmly established through literally thousands of AfD closures over many years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * --Inspite of the numerous times I agree with you, I dare say that your argument looks like some sort of circular reasoning.If the WP prefer(s) to operate in a type of positive-feedback-loop triggered solely by precedents, bringing any change anywhere will be terrifically difficult.Godric on Leave (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per long-standing consensus at AfD that secondary schools of confirmed notability be regarded as notable. The flip side is that all but a few elementary schools are automatically regarded as non-notable. Inclusionists and deletionists each have something to like and something to dislike and we can all spend our time working on other things without slogging through 5,000 notability challenges a year... Carrite (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The closure stated--Automatic notability of schools are how Wikipedia has always done it, and this has historically served us well...... do not make much sense and were discounted ....Cheers:)Godric on Leave (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * RFC or no RFC about the applicability of SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a rationale, hundreds of AfD debates have been decided the same way — there is a long and well-established consensus, and I support it. Carrite (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per Special:PermaLink/767023947, secondary schools are not presumed notable. This is the most recent consensus on whether secondary schools are presumed notable. As such, the arguments of most editors supporting "keep" based only on the fact that this is a secondary school must be discarded as not based in policy or the recent broad assessment of consensus. Future discussion should focus on the sources and the notability criteria, not on opinions of what should be presumed notable. See WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you disagree with the close of that RfC. Also per that RfC, offline sources should be taken into account in deletion rationales.
 * Comment – Of Swister Twister's proffered WP:V cites, only the middle one appears to mention the school by the name given here. Of the refs currently supplied by the article none mention the school at all, at least not at the landing page the supplied url goes to. While there may be a presumption that secondary schools are notable, the article's current sources are inadequate and I'd have thought it part of Swister Twister's responsibilities as AfC reviewer to supply the WP:V cites that needed to be there before the article was accepted, perhaps providing alternate names/transliterations for the school as it is known in Sri Lanka.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  07:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'll note the 3rd one actually mentions it but it's local language name; therefore that shouldn't discount from the fact it's in fact a valid source. SwisterTwister   talk  04:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. That is a misunderstanding of the admittedly very confused conclusion of that RfC. Checking back, it says there is no consensus that a mere appeal to SCHOOLOUTCOMES is sufficient. It also says there is no consensus to change the almost invariable practice that such schools will be considered notable.  (If you see a certain amount of contradiction here, I agree with you). In practice, even since that RfC, almost all secondary school articles for which there is proof of real existence from a third party source have been kept, just as before. What has changed is that we have reasonably enough become a little more skeptical amount those with no sourcing besides their web site. There are sources here--see the previous versions of the article history. They're not very good sources, but I think they're sufficient. I also think it would be very valuable to try to find something better. Removing what sources there are and then sayign "unsourced" is not a fair approach--rather, their adequacy should be discussed at the afd.  DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG: something else the RfC found was that the systemic bias arguments were strong for maintaining the existing practice. One of our core content policies is that Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and this same principle applies to coverage. There is still a clear consensus on keeping schools in North America and Europe based on the regional sources that inevitably exist per WP:NPOSSIBLE, which constitutes part of the notability guideline just as much as the GNG does. I personally would actually support a policy of redirecting most schools towards municipalities or school districts, but this will never happen for those schools in the West. So long as this is the case, the principles behind NPOV require us to hold schools in other parts of the world to the same standards we hold schools in the West to re:notability. That means extending them the generosity of NPOSSIBLE if they show they are likely to have independent sourcing. I think that has been demonstrated here, and thus it should be kept. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * and, I don't follow all school AfDs, so I don't know how many have closed as keep versus delete since the RfC, but I am aware of some delete closures, including at least one European school (Articles for deletion/International School of Schaffhausen). There have been others of non-Western schools that were demonstrated to exist but not to meet WP:GNG, such as Articles for deletion/The Mother's International School, Upleta and Cordless Larry (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * --While closing a long RFC, good arguments from both sides are mentioned (typically) but what matters is ultimately what stands out over one-another--which is(??) written in the nutshell.I am sympathetic to the arguments of systemic bias but the RFC closing statement wrote--Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources......If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted.I am certainly sure that those sources are the ones that SwisterTwister has brought! And, if these are the sources, we aspire for in an AfD, I can create thousands of articles on schools spread across the length and breadth of my country which are not yet covered on WP! Godric on Leave (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, that's the point. The offline sources ST has brought forth indicate it is likely that there are other sources that would at least meet the standards we hold Western schools to, which is to be honest, still just basically existing as any local school will have plenty of coverage in regional sourcing. This argument has always been why we kept schools, and was mentioned directly in the RfC close. Letting it basically be South Asian and African schools that we delete even though per NPOSSIBLE they would likely meet our sourcing standards if we had access to local non-English print media would be inappropriate and a massive violation of NPOV., the example of one poorly attended AfD for a European school in a non-anglophone country does not negate that as a whole, we keep Western secondary schools. Try to get rid of a random George Washington High and see what happens. We should by NPOV hold them to the same standards as schools in other countries, which the arguments in favour of deletion never do. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I tried arguing that local coverage wasn't enough at Articles for deletion/Union City Community High School,, and it didn't work. I wasn't suggesting that the Swiss school AfD negates the general point that Western schools are kept, but rather demonstrating that they are sometimes deleted. I have a feeling that consensus has swung slightly closer to delete since the RfC, but don't have the stats to prove that. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh no,, I know you weren't. Unfortunately our effort to clarify this with the RfC only muddied the waters. For what it's worth, I'm actually highly considering changing my vote to draftify per your argument: WP:N is only a guideline for inclusion while WP:V is a core content policy. When policies and guidelines are in tension, policies win out. I do need to consider how to balance V with NPOV re: schools, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Send back to draft because the draft was accepted despite all of its references being non-verifying. The draft author should have been told this and given the chance to provide proper sourcing. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Talawakelle Delete/Draftify---Per arguments of .I don't find any astute reason for holding schools so dear to our hearts and given the circumstances--a redirect seems a much better alternative.And meeting notability guidelines far outweigh age-old practices/precedents as valid AfD arguments.To echo I too seriously feel that the closure shall be re-ammended.I am not even minimally faulting the closers but it's close has become a new bone of contention among numerous School-AfD participants when it ought to have resolved another contention about SCHOOLOUTCOMES etc! And lastly, how these articles make way through AfC?!  Godric on Leave (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I raised that final question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help, . Cordless Larry (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed the reviewer.Usual shabby affair!Godric on Leave (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. The argument of the relister that "the arguments of most editors supporting "keep" based only on the fact that this is a secondary school must be discarded as not based in policy or the recent broad assessment of consensus" is simply incorrect. Consensus has not been changed by the RfC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The long-standing consensus at Wikipedia is that secondary schools which are verifiable are notable. The RFC did not change this. I agree that it is a circular argument to say "Common outcomes say these are kept so this must be kept." Instead I note that years ago I saw rural US high schools up for deletion because the nominator could not find adequate references online. However, many regions of the US have no newspapers included in online compilations, while big-city newspapers are more likely to be available online. There is systematic bias even in the US. There is much more bias in the availability of news media for third-world schools. Experience shows that if non-online news archives are consulted, adequate references can be found to satisfy WP:ORG for "real" high schools, as opposed to a home school or a short-lived religious school taught to a few children in a church basement for a few years. High schools are major public investments which have regional or state-wide influence, generally over a long span of time. Edison (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note from relister. I want to be very clear on this. A recent RfC tested whether there was consensus to presume notability and therefore retain secondary school articles merely based on existence. The result was "no consensus". I have passed this by one of the closers of the RfC, and they confirmed that my reading of the close is correct (that closer was, for reference). Arguments based solely on the fact that there is consensus that verifiable secondary schools are presumed notable will be discarded, even if they constitute an overwhelming majority, per WP:Local consensus. We had a very large-scale RfC that tested this very question and concluded there wasn't consensus for that view, even if there also wasn't consensus against. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that Primefac's view of the RfC close has been questioned in the past and consensus remains generally unchanged. Their opinion is merely an opinion and it has been disagreed with by other editors. No editor has any right to make the preposterous claim that "arguments based solely on the fact that there is consensus that verifiable secondary schools are presumed notable will be discarded, even if they constitute an overwhelming majority". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't realise quite how arrogant you sound. As always, closing an AfD is entirely up to an uninvolved closer and may be challenged at DRV. Issuing high-handed "instructions" that the opinions of certain editors (including very experienced editors) should be discounted is really not acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * was one of the RfC closers, so surely it's more than an opinion, ? Unless you're saying that the close did not accurately reflect consensus in the RfC discussion? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Primefac is just an editor like the rest of us, not some sort of supereditor, and the opinion of the closers has been challenged. At the end of the day, like most RfCs this was inconclusive, and its purpose (which was simply to formalise guidelines, not destroy existing consensus) was also misinterpreted. But primarily here I'm questioning Rob's pronouncement that certain opinions don't count because he and Primefac say so. Not how we do things on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but I think my point is that if the RfC close is being challenged, then it should be done so formally. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think I see the point of yet more hot air to arrive at yet another inconclusive "conclusion"! Best to stick with the status quo. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There was an RfC to test whether the statement "Notability is presumed for secondary schools that verifiably exist" has consensus. That RfC was closed as "no consensus". I've double-checked that interpretation with the RfC closer, who confirmed that was the close. If you want to contest that close, see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. With no policy or guideline to support that statement and the most recent discussion concluding without consensus for the statement, that specific rationale is not a policy or guideline based rationale. Per WP:CLOSE, policy or guideline based rationales receive more weight. This is all I'm stating. Nothing in there is particularly controversial. Note that it's not me saying this. It's the consensus at the RfC and WP:CONSENSUS, a policy, which explains how consensus is evaluated. Do with that information what you will, but do not be surprised if a closer does what the instructions say to do and discounts rationales that are not based in policies/guidelines. ~ Rob 13 Talk 23:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. One of the sources that Swister provided (this PDF here) is a 173-page file that lists government schools in Sri Lanka as of a date in 2016.  I checked the first seventeen pages and found about 350 that provide instruction up through Grade 11 (essentially, what the British call "O Level").  And those same seventeen pages show about an equal number of schools that provide instruction up through Grade 13 ("A Level").  That's about 700 schools in the first seventeen pages, suggesting that the entire document shows something on the order of 7,000 such schools.  Think about that -- if existence is the only thing needed to justify an article on a secondary school, this single PDF document can serve as the basis for 7,000 articles, each article being sourced to a single line in the document.  And which national/state/provincial government on the planet doesn't keep such lists?  Using existence as the only criterion, we'll have well more than a million such articles, the great majority of them just one or two sentences long.  Indeed, that's all it took for me to add the school's information into the article for the town in which it is located (see Talawakelle).  As for re-directing to the article on Talawakelle, doing that for every secondary school on the planet would lead to a lot more than a million re-directs, because many schools with names in non-English languages will have alternate English spellings.  They say "re-directs are cheap", but are they that cheap?  I think not.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is the first I'm aware of the RfC, but reading it now, it seems pretty clear that we always keep secondary schools is no longer a valid argument.  estimates, above, that there's a million secondary schoods.  English-language wikipedia has about 5.5 million pages.  Is anybody really arguing that something like 18% of our pages should be for secondary schools?  That would be absurd.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.